REVscene Automotive Forum - VPD's Chu explains officer justified in shooting; witness faces mischief charges

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)

- Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)

- - VPD's Chu explains officer justified in shooting; witness faces mischief charges (https://www.revscene.net/forums/599760-vpds-chu-explains-officer-justified-shooting%3B-witness-faces-mischief-charges.html)

VPD's Chu explains officer justified in shooting; witness faces mischief charges

Quote:

Vancouver's police chief has slammed the media after one of his officers was cleared of any wrongdoing in the shooting of Michael Vann Hubbard.

An Abbotsford police investigation conducted by Insp. Len Goerke recommended that the 31-year-old female police officer who shot Hubbard not face any criminal charges or consequences under the Police Act.

"After considering the totality of the circumstances facing the two police officers, notwithstanding that there was a tragic outcome, the officers were justified in using force that was intended or likely to cause grievous bodily harm or death," said Goerke in a statement.

On March 20, two officers approached Hubbard, an American citizen who had a history of mental illness, including schizophrenia, in the 500-block Homer Street after a report of a theft from a nearby vehicle. Two minutes and 40 seconds later, after Hubbard advanced on the officers with a utility knife, he was shot once by one of the officers.

Hubbard was handcuffed, but shortly afterward the 58-year-old stopped breathing and died at the scene.

Witnesses said later that Hubbard had told police to shoot him.

Of the 82 witnesses to the event, 79 largely corroborated the events as laid out by Goerke.

"The investigation has concluded that our officer acted in accordance with the law, her training, and our policies. Our officer acted in the defence of her own life and the safety of the public," Vancouver police Chief Jim Chu said in a statement.

Goerke recommended charges of public mischief against 25-year-old Adam Smolcic, a witness to the event who claimed four shots were fired and that Vancouver police had erased a cellphone video of the event.

It was on this point that Chu took the media to task.

"When a loss of life occurs, the public deserves a thorough and detailed accounting. Police officers know that their every move will be questioned, analyzed and examined. Their actions will be held to the highest standards of evidence and truth," Chu said in a statement.

"Unfortunately, very few of those standards of evidence and truth seem to apply to those who stand outside the fray. They enjoy an apparent impunity that seems to stem from knowledge that, unlike the police they criticize, they will never be held accountable if they rush to a judgment based on uncorroborated and unsubstantiated claims . . .

"If it is one day proven that Mr. Smolcic’s intent was to discredit the Vancouver Police, damage police morale, place great stress on the involved police officers, and damage the public’s trust, I want to note that he didn’t act alone . . .

"Some media commentators questioned Mr. Smolcic’s motivations and observations. But many others in the media accepted his allegations and repeated them without critical analysis."

Hubbard's children, Wendy Hubbard, a resident of Urbana, Ill., and Kimberly Hubbard, a resident of Champaign, Ill., filed a lawsuit in September alleging the actions of two officers were negligent and wrongful.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/expl...347/story.html

I commend Jim Chu for laying down some choice words for the media. If I was a cop, I would not feel 100% confident about my duties, no matter how right I am in the view of the law or the opinion of others, if my C.O. didn't have my back.

The original RS thread: http://www.revscene.net/forums/homel...s-t568994.html

Nice. :thumbsup:
Posted via RS Mobile

THe general public are to blame as well. No 1 is interested in good news. As soon as we can point our fingers at somebody, everyone will follow suit. Media is catering to public demand and report what the public wants to see. It's a vicious circle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by q0192837465 (Post 6729194)

Are you saying members of CSI:Revscene were wrong in their own criminal investigation of the incident? I don't believe you!

;) :haha:

Well prepared speech.

media will say w/e gets them sales/ratings. it's up to the individual to either accept or question what is put out there. but good on Chu for standing up for his officer.

Meantime, Pivot are still saying the guy with the fake video did nothing wrong. I have heard that several CCTV cameras showed he was nowhere he said he was. I wish the Chief all the best. Maybe he could include Pivot in the list of those charged as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by zulutango (Post 6729333)

The nearby CCTV footage and police dispatch audio can be viewed on the CTV website.

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...shColumbiaHome

IMO Pivot and this fake witness should be charged.

Adam Smolcic should face a mischief charge. This is a serious incident and his actions are un-called for. He demanded the police be accountable for their actions. He should also be accountable for his actions.

PIVOT should make a public apology ASAP or they risk losing more credibility with the average citizen. They were quick to attack the police for their actions, as they always are. But the video evidence clearly shows the actions were justified.

Chu has been a great chief so far. He's been well spoken at his press conferences. The media throws him curveballs and he keeps hitting them out of the park.

There is also a side story with Micheal Hubbard's family. Apparently they a considering a law suit with the VPD, because they are distraught with the loss of their father. They live in Illinois. Where was the love for their father when he was rotting away in the DTES?

pysc 100, we learned that ppl are drawn to the negative over the positive. when it comes to news, the same is true. negative stories draw more readership and attention than positive ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nns (Post 6729206)

Are you saying members of CSI:Revscene were wrong in their own criminal investigation of the incident? I don't believe you!

;) :haha:

though connected by land, we are not the united states. ppl in the US will sue over anything, fart in the wrong direction and they will see you in court!

Quote:

Originally Posted by adambomb (Post 6729469)

What's sad is whenever you have a police incident nowadays, the police are always considered to be the guilty party and the criminal is always innocent.

Report by Abbotsford PD:

Quote:

Incident: Abbotsford Police Department Investigation of March 20, 2009 Vancouver Police Department Police-Involved Shooting

Abbotsford — December 15, 2009.

The following information was prepared by Inspector Len Goerke:

March 20th, 2009 1040 hours — Two Vancouver Police Department Constables were investigating the theft of property from a motor vehicle parked in the 600 Block of Granville Street. A witness described a Caucasian male fleeing the scene with a stolen black knapsack.

In their search for the suspect they observed a male, later determined to be Michael Vann HUBBARD, who appeared to be rummaging through a black knapsack in the 500 block of Homer Street. They approached the male, identified themselves as Vancouver Police Officers and indicated to Mr. HUBBARD that they were investigating a theft from an auto and began questioning him.

The Constables asked to see Mr. HUBBARD's black knapsack to determine if it was the one stolen from the vehicle, at which point Mr. HUBBARD became agitated. He was told that if he continued to be uncooperative he would be handcuffed.

At this point Mr. HUBBARD produced a utility knife with the blade extended, began swearing and screaming at the constables and advancing towards them. Mr. HUBBARD held the knife in his right hand, in front of his body. Witnesses indicate that he was telling the police officers to shoot him. Both constables drew their service pistols, started backing up and repeatedly directed Mr. HUBBARD to drop the knife. Mr. HUBBARD haltingly advanced on the constables as they backed up along the sidewalk on Homer Street.

One shot was fired. The complete interaction with Mr. HUBBARD lasted approximately two minutes and forty seconds; the confrontation between the constables and Mr. HUBBARD, with Mr. HUBBARD brandishing the knife, lasted approximately one minute and forty seconds.

Eighty-two non-police witnesses observed all or part of the interaction and provided statements to investigators. Three of those 82 witness indicated that more than one shot was fired by police

79 witness accounts are overwhelmingly consistent with reports that Mr. HUBBARD was advancing towards the police officers with the edged weapon extended in front of him in a threatening manner and ignoring the officers' instructions. Witnesses state that:

He was holding a knife in front of him pointed towards the police officers.

He was waving the knife at the police.

He was telling the police to shoot him.

The police officers backed up as Mr. HUBBARD advanced towards them.

The police officers repeatedly told Mr. HUBBARD to drop the knife or the weapon.

The police officers repeatedly told Mr. HUBBARD to stop.

Police fired one shot.

The event was captured on two video surveillance cameras. The video is consistent with statements provided by the involved police officers as well as with the overwhelming majority of witnesses.

Mr. HUBBARD was a citizen of the United States of America who arrived in Canada in February of 2008. He was the subject of an arrest warrant from Immigration Canada and unemployed and homeless at this time. Mr. Hubbard was suffering from chronic schizophrenia. Toxicology tests indicated no presence of medications commonly prescribed for schizophrenia.

The backpack found in Mr. HUBBARD's possession was not the stolen backpack the officers were trying to locate and Mr. HUBBARD was not involved in the theft from vehicle.

The videos show:

In the minutes preceding police arrival, Mr. HUBBARD sitting on the bench or standing near the bench.

Police stop their police car on Homer Street, exit the vehicle and approach Mr. HUBBARD who is standing in front of Belkin House.

When police approach Mr. HUBBARD's back is to them.

The police officers appear relaxed, walking slowly; one of the officers has her hands in her pockets.

After approximately sixty seconds of conversation both police officers begin quickly retreating and reach for their side arms.

Concurrently Mr. HUBBARD advances towards the retreating officers.

The officers quickly withdraw backward several steps and confront Mr. HUBBARD with their firearms drawn.

Mr. HUBBARD stops advancing.

Mr. HUBBARD stands facing the officers with his legs greater than shoulder width apart. One police officer stands two to three metres away, off Mr. HUBBARD's left side. One police officer stands two to three metres away, off Mr. HUBBARD's right side.

Every few seconds Mr. HUBBARD takes a short step forward with either his left or right foot towards the officers. His right arm is extended at the elbow towards the officers.

The video does not show Mr. HUBBARD's hands or if he is holding anything.

Every time Mr. HUBBARD takes a step towards the police officers they take several steps backwards along the sidewalk away from the front door of Belkin House.

Approximately sixty-two seconds after the confrontation begins the police officers wave at citizens behind Mr. HUBBARD to move away.

Approximately one minute and fifty seconds after the confrontation begins Mr. HUBBARD takes several steps towards police and stops.

Approximately two minutes and fourteen seconds after the confrontation begins Mr. HUBBARD looks over his left shoulder. At this time an individual is walking on Homer Street past him.

Approximately two minutes and sixteen seconds after the confrontation begins Mr. HUBBARD raises his right arm so that it is parallel to the sidewalk and points it at one of the police officers.

Mr. HUBBARD takes two small steps forward and stops, the police officers step back.

Approximately two minutes and twenty seven seconds after the confrontation begins Mr. HUBBARD lowers his right arm from shoulder height to somewhere between his waist and chest. From the elbow forward the arm appears to be perpendicular to the sidewalk.

Approximately two minutes and thirty two seconds after the confrontation begins Mr. HUBBARD starts walking towards the police officers.

Mr. HUBBARD takes twelve steps at a normal walking pace towards the police officers before one of them fires one shot and Mr. HUBBARD falls.

It is not possible to determine from the video exactly how far from the police officers Mr. HUBBARD is when the shot is fired; however, it appears, on estimation, to the writer to be approximately three metres.

The following are my conclusions:

The two police officers were in the lawful execution of their duty when they interacted with Mr. Hubbard.

The two police officers had reasonable grounds to believe that they were in immediate peril of grievous bodily harm or death.

The two police officers appropriately acted to defend themselves in a manner consistent with their training.

After considering the totality of the circumstances facing the two police officers, notwithstanding that there was a tragic outcome, the officers were justified in using force that was intended or likely to cause grievous bodily harm or death.

Therefore, I am not recommending Criminal Code charges. I am also forwarding the investigation report to C/Cst Cessford with my assessment that no Police Act defaults were committed.

Inspector Len Goerke

Officer in Charge Criminal Investigation Branch - Abbotsford Police Department

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/wil...890/story.html

pivot is a pro-bono legal society that speaks for the rights of the poor, destitute, homeless, etc http://www.pivotlegal.org/

so im not really following this case but the guy who had a cellphone, was something deleted from his phone or not? (his version of events may be inaccurate but that's a separate issue)

and from that Abbotsford report describing the details... it sounds like the police were too afraid to try and deal with this guy and just opted to shoot him

^ 1) He allegedly made up the story.

2) How so? "Approximately two minutes and thirty two seconds after the confrontation begins Mr. HUBBARD starts walking towards the police officers. Mr. HUBBARD takes twelve steps at a normal walking pace towards the police officers before one of them fires one shot and Mr. HUBBARD falls."

I am still waiting for someone to ask why the cops didn't magically shoot the knife out of that guy's hand.

I expect police to wrestle and beat assailants to the ground @ risk of themselves like they do in other countries (Australia for one) ^^

edit: oh he had a knife? lol ah ic, i just read the abbotsford report and i guess i misread i thought it said no knife could be seen

^
If they beat them, you would still complain.

assumptions, the gift for idiots to make them feel like know-it-alls

but you're right i probably would complain if they gave him a Rodney King beating; there is always a line that shouldn't be crossed

Quote:

Originally Posted by impactX (Post 6729689)

Where's Great68 at?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRS (Post 6729826)

Where's Great68 at?

It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling that I pissed you off so much you constantly keep me in your mind and keep bringing my name up around the forum.

Makes me feel even better that the RCMP's own complaints commission slammed the hell out of the four officers involved for how they handled the situation.

Makes me feel better still that one of the officers involved pulled a cowardly snake move to get out of a drunk driving causing death charge showing his true, dishonest character.

:)

This case with this bum, well I don't think they did anything wrong at all.

They killed a man for pulling out an exacto knife...

2 on 1 and they shot the dude. They can easily split up and another tackle the dude. They could of pulled out there baton and beat him.

Honestly, I'm not trying to say the police officer are guilty of this incident, but they did used unnecessary force to deal with it.

Police officers now a days have a tendency of pulling out their gun the minute they feel they are in danger. Of course they should, but the minute they know that the threat isn't as severe as they thought, one can withdraw his gun and use a different tactic to take down their opponent.

It's 2 police officer on 1 old psycho dude with an exacto knife.. is it necessary to take his life?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aznlangjai (Post 6730204)

Coming from a guy that has problems managing his own debt.

You're not on the line of duty 24/7 in which your life is always at risk. Just shut the fuck up already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aznlangjai (Post 6730204)

Let's add some perspective. Someone posted this in the original RS thread when the shooting occured months earlier:

Quote:

Originally Posted by coroner-cuts2 (Post 6341572)

for all the people out there who think the cops shouldn't of shot this guy then do this test........................... ORANGE 7 actually also said this

1.) get a unknown person (average) to stand 20 feet away from you with his back towards you
2.) make sure he has two options to chose from, a black marker (represents a knife) and nothing (representing his fist)
3.) you stand their in a normal standing position and let this guy decide when he will charge at you and what he is going to use
4.) if he choses the knife, then defend yourself agaist a little small x acto knife.............. when does he stop??????????????? when he feel like it or until you stop him........
5.) count how many times you are marked with that black marker, that will equal how many times you have been stabbed

now you can all say that not everyone is a cop and we all dont have guns,,,,,,,,,,,,,fair

now put a duty belt on with the following tools...............oc spray,baton, taser and pistol

now in that 5 seconds or less that it takes this guy to run at you full speed....... decide what weapon you are going to use????????

even better.............. the NATIONAL USE OF FORCE MODEL which governs all the force options by police in pretty much north america considers a knife or "sharp edged weapon" to be in the "greavous bodily harm, or death" catagory...............

that means you can use lethal force (because the other tools will not defend you, this is proven)

now in that 2-5 seconds that it takes for a person to charge at you from 20 feet, pull out a gun from a holster (yes you can have all the time you want to practice this)

and take aim (cause you have all the time in the world)

and shoot at his 5 inch leg so that you might disable him...........or better the arm that he is holding the knife in................or better the hand!!!!!!!!! g

I got one word for you then.................................

GOOD LUCK and see you on the other side when your dead!!!

just a little food for thought

http://www.revscene.net/forums/showp...2&postcount=47

FYI, aznprettyboy, if you read the play-by-play that I posted earlier of the incident, the whole situation happened within a span of less than 3 mins, with the cops retreating numerous times before the shot was fired. You can play Monday morning quarterback all you want, like so many did before, but the fact is an investigation has proven that the officer's actions were appropriate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StylinRed (Post 6729793)

Weren't you the guy who assumed the cops killed in Tacoma were dirty? Before the blood even dried you guys were already throwing up assumptions.

http://www.revscene.net/forums/showp...65&postcount=7